Fusion power
 

More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309


Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is
making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running.
The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion
output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

--
--

Colin Bignell

Fusion power
 

The big problem is that in order to sustain fusion, you need to keep the
plasma confined. To keep it confined you use magnetism, the electromagnets
use current and its hard to use superconductors as the need very cold temps
but fusion is very very hot so the power needed always ends up more than is
being made.
I suppose if e could find a material with superconduction properties at
high temps then it might be easier, but then you also have the effect of the
radiation from the fusion reaction, and this changes many materials very
fast into completely useless stuff. So you need high temperature materials
that do not melt or get affected by radiation. Then you need some way to
efficiently extract the energy from the fusion reaction, again without the
device being destroyed.

As has been said. We know how to make a fusion reaction, but we do not know
how to use it.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309


Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is
making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running.
The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion
output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

--
--

Colin Bignell

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 09:16, Nightjar wrote:
Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

Indeed. But its future is in doubt because of Brexit. From a report in "Nature" May 29th https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05283-x

"Fusion research in the United Kingdom faces an uncertain future after Brexit.
Prime Minister Theresa May conceded on 21 May that a post-Brexit Britain was willing to pay to €œfully associate€� with Euratom, Europes nuclear agency."

But after 2 years of negotiation there is no deal with Euratom and Mrs May has said that we cannot continue to be a member because any Euratom disputes fall under the remit of the European Court - one of her most emphatic red lines. Whether some kind of "association agreement" is possible nobody knows, but since we seem to be going full pelt towards a hard Brexit, this seems unlikely. So it may go the same way as a lot of joint scientific projects with other countries in Europe - but, hey, it's a net saving of taxpayers' money isn't it. We have to look on the bright side.



--
Clive Page

Fusion power
 

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from, and
the UK deciding for itself what it will do about
government financing infrastructure and what it
does about renewables and climate change.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 09:53, Clive Page wrote:
snip

Indeed.Â* But its future is in doubt because of Brexit.Â*Â* From a report
in "Nature" May 29th https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05283-x


I didn't think JET had much of a future anyhow with ITER the next big
thing, and that it's more the future of Culham that's at risk. But then
it's had a pretty good innings: I was at college with people who got
jobs there straight after their doctorates and stayed there until they
retired at 60. Though I'm sure it's a total myth that more than one
retirement do featured a toast to "fusion: an almost limitless source of
research funding."


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309


Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a
question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate
power economically.

From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless
power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable.
It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically.

Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported?

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

Â*We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.


A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

--
*Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.

I actually feel quite sorry for you if you really do consider you are
ruled by the EU 'unelected oligarchy'. You must lead an extremely odd
life. Perhaps that consists of Hoovering all day with some ancient heavy
machine which needs replacement.

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Fusion power
 

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:35:14 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

The big problem is that in order to sustain fusion, you need to keep the
plasma confined. To keep it confined you use magnetism,

Or a lot of concentrated mass!


--
AnthonyL

Fusion power
 

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:57:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.

These people that crave a 'Big Brother' style of fascistic, autocratic
government such as that represented by the EU most likely suffer from an
insecure attachment pattern; a condition arising from early childhood
when the infant's needs were not consistently met by its principle care-
giver. This fosters life-long anxieties, raised cortisol levels and a
desperate need to have every facet of their lives rigidly set out in
stone for them to follow. In the absence of same, they typically grow up
to become fat, tragic, unemployable wasters constantly feeling threatened
and undermined by those who are not similarly afflicted. Sad, really.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:57:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.

These people that crave a 'Big Brother' style of fascistic, autocratic
government such as that represented by the EU most likely suffer from an
insecure attachment pattern; a condition arising from early childhood
when the infant's needs were not consistently met by its principle care-
giver. This fosters life-long anxieties, raised cortisol levels and a
desperate need to have every facet of their lives rigidly set out in
stone for them to follow. In the absence of same, they typically grow up
to become fat, tragic, unemployable wasters constantly feeling
threatened and undermined by those who are not similarly afflicted.
Sad, really.

Never mind. Keep at the therapy. You'll be fixed eventually. Hopefully.

--
*I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

Do we vote in our civil service?

And how about the H of L? Very democratic, that.

Giving the population the chance to elect absolutely everyone does not
guarantee getting the best people for the job.

It may not have occurred to you, but giving anyone a job solely on their
political beliefs matching yours may be a good thing to help keep your job
secure, but may well not be in the best interests of all.

--
*Change is inevitable ... except from vending machines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one (debateably less so, since MEPs
are elected by PR, unlike the UK's deeply unfair FPTP system) ...

This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the
whole cabinet.

Could you clarify what you mean? Are you implying the present cabinet is
doing a good job? If not, are you suggesting a labour one (the only likely
alternative) would do better?

Or do you prefer keeping things at some theoretical level? The one where
the UK system is just perfect?

There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to get
out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck with that
under WTO rules. Or in any other trade agreement, come to that.

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

When the Tories lost all their seats in Scotland in 97, the lesson for
them was "must try harder", not "Let's whinge about how unfair it is".

Really? You actually heard everything said by them anywhere?

However, the SNP is a very good lesson to us all. Just because a party
claims to speak for the people doesn't make it automatically the best for
the country. Very likely because it filled all the civil service positions
it could with cronies.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 09:16, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309



Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge is
making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it running.
The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a fusion
output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

And every year for decades there has been a new flavour being touted
around by a reputable organisation looking for funding. But, so far, the
only real progress has been from the "mainstream" strategies of Tokamak
or laser compression.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 15:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

Â*We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.


A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace
it with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

No, I can't. I have never lived in a constituency where my vote would
make any difference as to which party takes it.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

From my point of view, there is no difference in the two systems.

In any case, the influence the EU has on UK legislation was grossly
overstated by the Leave campaigners. A count of primary and secondary
legislation active in 2014 showed that just 29% of them had their
origins in EU legislation. This is probably the most accurate way to
assess the real impact of the EU on UK law*.

In addition, since 1999, in the Council of Ministers, the UK has opposed
just 2% of EU legislation, abstained on 3% and given its full support to
95% of it. Hence, most of that 29% has had our full support.

*It is possible to juggle the numbers to show anything up to 62% (75%
was an outright lie) but, to do that you have to include every EU
regulation issued, despite the fact that some, such as regulations on
the import of fruit and vegetables into the EU, are only in force for a
single day and some, such as the regulations on Schengen, have no effect
in the UK.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Fusion power
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

Fusion power
 

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.


A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one

Of course it is when the government stuffs up badly enough like Blair
and Brown did, the voters can see if the other lot can do any better.
Not possible with the unelected oligarchy that decides what the EP
gets to vote on but does not get to write any legislation or even
amend existing legislation either.

Fusion power
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one (debateably less so, since MEPs
are elected by PR, unlike the UK's deeply unfair FPTP system) ...

This risible twaddle. And with a change of UK government out goes the
whole cabinet.

Could you clarify what you mean? Are you implying the present cabinet is
doing a good job? If not, are you suggesting a labour one (the only likely
alternative) would do better?

Or do you prefer keeping things at some theoretical level? The one where
the UK system is just perfect?

There was a chap on Any Questions yesterday. Said the main reason to get
out of the EU was so we could make our own decisions. Good luck with that
under WTO rules.

The WTO rules have no say in any government policy except that
in the absence of a trade agreement, tariffs have to apply to all
countries and can not be selective by country.

Or in any other trade agreement, come to that.

Those don’t even have that WTO rule requirement.

Fusion power
 

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 15:12, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.


A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

No, I can't. I have never lived in a constituency where my vote would make
any difference as to which party takes it.

But the country as a whole can and did with Brown and Blair.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

From my point of view, there is no difference in the two systems.

More fool you. The EP can't even initiate legislation or amend existing
legislation if it decides that is desirable. Both are done by the unelected
unsackable bureaucrats.

And anyway, the voters who bothered to vote voted to leave
the EU and you remoaners get to like that or lump it.

Fusion power
 

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:13:28 +0100
Tim Streater wrote:


Where you live is your choice, so it's no good complaining that you've
chosen to live in a safe seat constituency.


I've never really taken any notice of you before, but you really are a
stupid ****, aren't you.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309



Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a
question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate
power economically.

From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless
power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable.
It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically.

Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't
reported?

This was a fairly widespread view in the UK up to the late 1970's. A
*lot* of R&D money went into the UKAEA and CEGB research programmes; I
know, I spent some of it. Many countries thought the same.

In the UK, DFR (a small prototype) was comparatively successful. PFR, a
250 MW pre-commercial stage had a lot of problems, as did the Russians
and other countries with similar plant. Quite a lot of design work went
into CFR, the proposed first UK commercial sized plant but when people
started doing the sums more carefully the breeding ratio was
disappointing, and the capital cost was high compared to PWRs and BWRs.

The French went a bit further before coming to the same conclusion, the
Japanese took longer.

But the Russians may have more or less cracked it (at least, the Chinese
seem to think so).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 17:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:21:37 -0700, harry wrote:

More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ovel-approach-
fusion-power-0309

Dunno about that, but whatever happened to the scheme the BBC advertised
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mentioned in the Helen Czerski BBC4 prog earlier this
year ?

https://firstlightfusion.com/

Yup. More smoke and mirrors.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Fusion power
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 06:48:17 +1000, cantankerous geezer Rot Speed blabbered,
again:

From my point of view, there is no difference in the two systems.

More fool you. The EP can't even initiate legislation or amend existing
legislation if it decides that is desirable. Both are done by the unelected
unsackable bureaucrats.

And anyway, the voters who bothered to vote voted to leave
the EU and you remoaners get to like that or lump it.

It's none of your business AT ALL, senile quarrelsome Ozzietard! tsk

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

Fusion power
 

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.


A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one

Of course it is

Argument by assertion.

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting what was nothing like assertion
and was actually pointing out where that claim of yours is wrong.

Fusion power
 

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesn’t.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesn’t.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by the
NHS instead.


Why is there a demand for them to clean cars and why don't the British
do it? They aren't taking jobs off British people as they didn't do that
job before. They probably won't after either.

Fusion power
 

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 23:45, Jeff wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2018 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger
towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

The UK already controls immigration

Not with the migrants from the EU it doesn’t.

but still lets enough in to account
for 60% of immigrants + EU migrants.

But does not allow immigrants whose only skill is cleaning cars
who decide that they will do that in the UK into the UK.


No they stop skilled doctors and nurses who have been recruited by the NHS
instead.

They clearly do not do that.

Why is there a demand for them to clean cars

There isn't. That’s all the unskilled can do.

and why don't the British
do it?

Because they can just put their hand out to the state for the dole.

They aren't taking jobs off British people as they didn't do that
job before. They probably won't after either.

Likely not, but it doesn’t matter when those who are too lazy
to wash their own cars can use machine car washes instead.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 09:53, Clive Page wrote:
On 30/06/2018 09:16, Nightjar wrote:
Fusion reactors have been around for quite a few years. The challenge
is making one that produces more energy than is needed to keep it
running. The Joint European Torus holds the current world record for a
fusion output of 16MW, with a heating input of 24MW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

Indeed.Â* But its future is in doubt because of Brexit.Â*Â* From a report
in "Nature" May 29th https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05283-x

"Fusion research in the United Kingdom faces an uncertain future after
Brexit.
Prime Minister Theresa May conceded on 21 May that a post-Brexit Britain
was willing to pay to €œfully associate€� with Euratom, Europes nuclear
agency."

But after 2 years of negotiation there is no deal with Euratom and Mrs
May has said that we cannot continue to be a member because any Euratom
disputes fall under the remit of the European Court - one of her most
emphatic red lines.Â* Whether some kind of "association agreement" is
possible nobody knows, but since we seem to be going full pelt towards a
hard Brexit, this seems unlikely.Â*Â* So it may go the same way as a lot
of joint scientific projects with other countries in Europe - but, hey,
it's a net saving of taxpayers' money isn't it.Â* We have to look on the
bright side.



We are already pretty much tegher on replacing the functionality of
Euratom with our own regulatory authorities.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...-11061801.html

JET is part European funded, but it is not based in Europe. Its in Culham.

If the EU and Euratom want to cut off their noses,to fund less than
£150m of JET a YEAR out of the £350m a WEEK that we dont need to pay
Brussels and the £320m a WEEK that we dont need to pay renewable energy
companies with should be a piece of ****.

And the EU can **** off.

We had joint projects with european nations before we were in the EU
at all.

"Ariane is a series of a European civilian expendable launch vehicles
for space launch use. The name comes from the French spelling of the
mythological character Ariadne.

France first proposed the Ariane project and it was officially agreed
upon at the end of 1973 after discussions between France, Germany and
the UK. The project was Western Europe's second attempt to develop its
own launcher following the unsuccessful Europa project. The Ariane
project was code-named L3S (the French abbreviation for third-generation
substitution launcher). The European Space Agency (ESA) charged the EADS
subsidiary Astrium, presently Airbus Defence and Space, with the
development of all Ariane launchers and of the testing facilities, while
Arianespace, a 32.5% CNES (French government space agency) commercial
subsidiary created in 1980, handles production, operations and marketing.

Arianespace launches Ariane rockets from the Guiana Space Centre at
Kourou in French Guiana."




--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 10:12, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Pore ole Huge. Still a believer after all those Euro****s have ****ed in
his face.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 10:38, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.


ROFLMAO.

You mean you think that post brexit we will have a labour government?



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 23:01, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/06/2018 11:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2018-06-30, Jeff wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2018-06-30, Clive Page wrote:

We have to look on the bright side.

There is no "bright side" (of Brexit).

Of course there is

Nope. Wrong. We are going to be poorer and less democratic.

We will be more democratic as we will be ruled by elected governments
again, instead of by an unelected oligarchy that we cannot remove.


A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

Tim's had it repeatedly pointed out to him that the UK electoral system
is no more democratic than the EU one

Of course it is

Argument by assertion.


In the UK, the Commons, where legislastion originates, is elected, and
the upper house, where legislation is rubber stamped, or amended are
political appointees.

In the EU, the commissioners, where lesgislations is originated, are
political appointees. The upper house - the MEPS - where legislation is
rubber stamped and seldom amended, are elected.



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 15:35, Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
A chimera. I would like to remove the present government and replace it
with people who don't put internal politics before the good of the
country, but I can't.

You can at the next election. That's the difference.

Whereas after the next EUParl elections, there will be the same
unelected commissioners, and broadly the same MEPs, elected on their
****ty list system.

How do you think prospective MPs are chosen in the UK? By the voters in
that constituency?

I wouldn't bother. Tim is utterly convinced of his (incorrect) position
and you're wasting your time.


In te end its not about what you or Tim think, its about what 17m people
were strongly motivated enough to vote for.


No true democracy exists, and the EU is less of a democarcy than teh UK
used to be, argueasbly.

Most people dont give a ****. They compare the world inside te EU with
what they consider to be the world ouside the EU, and decided to leave
Merkels kindergarten and joing the adults.

I am sortry you didnt pass the test Huge, and will stay in te kiddies
playground, but we are moving on.

But you willfeeel safer and happier having your nappies changed for you,
so why not move to - say - Sweden, where you can get blown up by an
islamic 'migrant'




--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 21:58, Jim wrote:
I've never really taken any notice of you before, but you really are a
stupid ****, aren't you.

I've never really taken any notice of *you* before, but you really are a
stupid ****, aren't you.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 21:04, Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU immigrants
it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many larger towns
across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

When I was in hospital on Friday, I was treated by an English nurse and
a Balinese nurse. Ther was also an Indian nurse in evidence

Not a single 'European' to be seen.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Fusion power
 

On 30/06/18 11:05, Jim Ericsson wrote:
On 30/06/2018 07:21, harry wrote:
More BS?
http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-newly-f...ion-power-0309



Probably..., the thing with fusion power is that it isn't just a
question of if it can generate power technically, but if it can generate
power economically.


Actually it hasnt reaslly even got top te 'generate (net*)
(controllable**) power technically' bit.

From what I have read fission breeder reactors offer almost limitless
power and currently seem to be technologically simpler, more tractable.
It seems likely that they could be developed to operate economically.


No pint while straiught single pass fission is even chepaer and the fuel
is cheaper than chips.

Yet with breeder/fission we don't appear to see the same level of
research development investment as with fusion. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe
there is similar levels of investment to fusion but it just isn't reported?

Fission doesn't need basic research. It's all about development. We know
how to build a fission reactor that works, we just want to build better
ones. That's commercial develoment IF, the government gets the 'man with
the red flag' of over paranoid nuclear regulations out of the way....

Government involvement in nuclear research is more at the educational
level than the project level.


*more power out than in
** to exclude H bombs..

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

Fusion power
 

In article ,
Jeff wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jeff wrote:
Of course there is with not having to accept anyone
from the EU that decides that their prospects in the
UK are better than where they are coming from

Let's hope you never need hospital treatment. Without those EU
immigrants it would simply stop working. As with so much else in many
larger towns across the UK.

But when no longer in the EU, the UK will be free to choose
which immigrants are useful in the UK and which like the
Romanians whose only 'skills' are washing cars should not be allowed.

Quite simple really. Wash your own car and those Romanians would not
bother coming here. Same with all the various delivery services. Coffee
shops and so on.

Immigrants come here because they can find work. Makes no difference what
sort of work.

--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.